**Case Summary: Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association**
**Case No:** 19F-H1919066-REL
**Date of Decision:** August 26, 2019
**Administrative Law Judge:** Antara Nath Rivera

**Overview**
This case involved an administrative hearing regarding a dispute between Petitioner John Sellers and Respondent Rancho Madera Condominium Association. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to timely provide records requested on April 29, 2019.

**Key Facts and Issues**
The Petitioner requested four specific categories of records:
1. Communications between the Association’s legal counsel (Carpenter Hazelwood), agents, and the Petitioner’s ex-wife.
2. Unredacted legal invoices for the current petition.
3. Records of Executive Sessions and minutes regarding the retention of counsel.
4. Communications and notices regarding alleged meetings where residents signed a petition against the Petitioner.

The Petitioner filed a dispute petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on May 29, 2019, claiming the bulk of his request was denied.

**Hearing Proceedings and Arguments**
At the August 5, 2019 hearing, the Petitioner argued that the Respondent failed to comply with the statute. However, he testified that he received documents responsive to the legal invoices (Item #2) on August 2, 2019, and was satisfied with that compliance. Regarding Items #1 and #4, the Petitioner testified that he "strongly believed" the emails existed and opined that meetings must have occurred to gather 21 resident signatures, despite the Respondent claiming otherwise.

Jeff Kaplan, President of the Respondent Association, testified that the Association had provided all documents in its possession that were not subject to statutory exceptions. His specific defenses were:
* **Items #1 and #4:** These records did not exist. Kaplan testified that no official meetings occurred on the dates alleged; rather, residents individually signed a petition because they were unhappy with the Petitioner.
* **Item #2:** Redacted invoices were provided to protect attorney-client privilege.
* **Item #3:** Redacted executive session minutes were provided, asserting that full disclosure is not required under A.R.S. § 33-1248.

**Legal Findings and Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge placed the burden of proof on the Petitioner to demonstrate a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The Judge dismissed the petition based on the following conclusions:

* **Non-Existence of Records:** For Items #1 and #4, the Judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to prove the documents actually existed at the time of the request. The Judge noted that questions regarding whether the Association *should* have maintained such records under a retention policy were irrelevant to the specific statutory violation alleged.
* **Statutory Exceptions:** For Item #3, the Judge found no violation, noting the records fell under the exceptions outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1258(B), which allows withholding records related to pending litigation or privileged communication.
* **Compliance:** The Petitioner acknowledged compliance regarding Item #2.

**Outcome**
The Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1258, finding that the Association provided access to reviewable documents and even provided records beyond the scope of the request. The Petition was **dismissed**.